I could actually agree with you there. The human genome means more to humanity on a global scale than one person's partisan agenda. One can only hope that the information attained from the research is used for the "good" of all peoples, rich and poor.
You are right. Kim Dae-jung did win this years Nobel Peace Prize, and you are right; winning the Peace Prize is a lot more convincing that "Person of the Year". One need only look at previous winners of the "Person of the Year". These include; computers, Middle America and Earth. What an absolute joke.
There are so many things I can say to you but I won't. I will stick to facts, and facts alone. But for you to say that I hate American and American citizens is utter bullshit. You might be surprised to know some of my best friends here in Perth, are...OH MY GOD...SHOULD I ADMIT IT....AMERICANS!!! But you continue to read into my posts how you will. Your loss...not mine.
North and South Korea
America assisting the South against the North is not all that simple. Why? You seem to have forgotten about a little country of over a billion people called China. China is still very friendly towards the North (this is proven because both countries still have a Military and Friendship Pact). BUT...having said that. Let's just say for a minute that the North invaded the South. Then America steps in. What is China going to do? Well because the Americans will be fighting the Commies to the North, China will use that opportunity to invade Taiwan, with little to no resistance from the Taiwanese and their American "allies". What is the prize here? South Korea or Taiwan? I can tell you which one the American government thinks, and I am sure you will know too.
Can I also ask you, why the North may have shown, what some people will call, agression. It wouldn't have anything to do with all the American soldiers which are currently stationed in the South. The Russians, at no stage, had a military presence in the North, like that of which the Americans maintain in the South.
I add further, that the North and South have been able to reach their latest "victories" for peace and understanding without the outside influences of China, Japan, AND America. All of the dialogue which lead to breakthroughs this year, was done between the North and the South, and those two parties only. This is the only way that the Korean "problem" will ever be solved, because when outside parties come into the fray, their own agendas will overshadow talks, when the only agendas that should be discussed are those of the Korean people.
America being responsible for Australia
Is that a joke? I really do not hope you think this is true. In what sense is that even reality?
You tend to forget that there is a reason why two countries are called "allies". This is because they work as a team, and NO ONE country takes responsibility for victory, and NO ONE country blames their ally for defeat.
Let's say what you say is true. Then why wasn't the American men and women able to stop the Japanese from bombing Darwin and Broome in WWII? Why wasn't the American defence forces able to stop the disaster which was the HMAS Sydney?
You obviously know a lot about Australian history during WWII. Could you please then explain to me how the Japanese advance into Australia was halted? You might just learn about the Kokoda Trail, Bougainville, the Fuzzy-Wuzzy's, Timor, amongst others. It is the tribal people to our north in Indonesia, Timor, Irian Jaya and Papua New Guinea who are the real heroes for putting a halt to the plans of raising the Japanese Empire flag in Australia.
Australia rushed to the call of America in Vietnam. Which other country's, apart from Canada and New Zealand, did this? Where was America, OUR ALLY, when we asked for help in East Timor? (I am not complaining here, because our troops are well able to look after my country; I am just showing you a point)
Our country has matured a lot in the past 20 years, and we have become less dependent on America for our military defence. This is evident in the five-nation alliance, between Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Britain. This is IMHO my country's most important military alliance, because the greatest threat to my country, albeit practically non-existent, is the country directly to our North; Indonesia. Yes, Indonesia, a country which is armed to teeth with American supplied F-16s. Yes, my country has in the past too overlooked the former Suharto regime, and we even held military ties with Indonesia, but in the last couple of years, these ties have been scaled back in a major way.
So please do not say that America is responsible for my family sleeping well at night! My grandfather who lost his life on Bougainville, my great-uncle who lost his life in Gallipoli and my great-grandfather who lost his life on the Western Front are responsible for this. This is in addition to Australia's allies, England, France, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and others. SHOULD I BE EVEN SO BOLD AS TO ADD AMERICA TO THAT LIST?
BACK TO TOPIC!!
I also stand corrected as quoting Nelson Mandela as having won "Person of the Year". This is incorrect. In any of the years he should have won that title, Ted Turner and Bill Clinton took it. Again...a JOKE!
To anyone who says that Bush should have this title because of the amount of headlines during this year, then may I then ask why Elian Gonzalez didn't win, because from what I can remember, this kid had more headlines this year than anyone else. Am I right or wrong?
And to all the little kiddies on this forum, unless you have something truly enlightening to add don't bother posting. Hell....if you insist on posting, how about giving your reasons as to why Bush should have been given "Person of the Year" because so far not one person has given any reason which is at all relevant.
We have had so far the following reasons why:
A person can be extremely successful and all that and still be unpopular. Just look at Bill Gates.
Think of it this way for a moment. Let's have a competition for "Woman of the Year". If it were to be based on popularity, and popularity alone, that title would have to go to someone of the likes of Christine "I'm a braindead blonde bimbo" Aguilera, Britney "I'm going to marry Prince William, even though he wants nothing to do with me" Spears, or Jennifer "I can get off gun charges because I am famous" Lopez. OK...all 3 of these women (well, Jennifer is a woman...the other 2 are still pre-pubescent aren't they?) are popular. But what thru them being popular have they actually done to warrant elevating their their status to "Woman of the Year", when you have the likes of Cathy Freeman, Mary Robinson, Megawati Sukarnoputri, Aung San Suu Kyi and others who have done more in their prescribed fields than any of the others put together.
Also, if "Person of the Year" is only an American title (which by looking at previous years, it is), and it is to be based on popularity, and popularity alone, how is one to judge how popular a person is. Well in the case of this year, TIME apparently said that the title would go to the winner of the American election, so therefore the American people decided who was most popular by voting. In the end, Bush won "Person of the Year" and in the eyes of some, means he was more popular. This is even though more people voted for the other person. Am I incorrect here?, coz I don't want to come across as an expert on American affairs here, which will then cause DG_Pilot to ramble on about me living half way around the world and commenting (little does he know that I am actually 2 years into a university degree in which one of my majors is HISTORY!)
2) TIME readership
N321RC mentioned that TIME is published in the US, and has the largest readership. This is actually incorrect. TIME may be published in the US, but there are also local versions around the world. The proof is in the pudding; you go to any airport around the world, and I guarantee you, you will be able to find a copy of TIME. 6 billion people in this world, 250 million in America. Now how many of the 6 billion and how many of the 250 million actually read TIME? I would not be in the least bit surprised, if readership on a global level outrates that of America by 10:1
END OF RANT....PHEWWWWWW